The main legal point established in the judgment is that a single creditor seeking relief against an insolvent debtor should raise their claims before the Official Assignee and not act on their own, based on settled legal principles established by the Division Bench.

1. The Applicant has filed the above Applications under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, namely, A.No.211 of 2004 to issue a certified copy of the accounts submitted by the 1st Respondent to the Applicant for scrutiny of the mala fide transactions made by the 1st Respondent; A.No.212 of 2004 to annul the order passed by this Court in I.P.No.140 of 2003, dated 3.9.2003; A.No.213 of 2004 to direct the Respondent to produce the original purchase and sales bills of the Ace Computers and Anil Jain and Vikas Computers; and A.No.214 of 2004 for an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from alienating/disposing of or in any manner encumbering the assets of the Respondent till the disposal of the above annul Petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that if only proper and necessary accounts had been produced before this Court. This Court would not have passed the order declaring the 1st Respondent as insolvent. Further, the 1st Respondent/insolvent has filed the Insolvency Petition only to cheat and deceive the creditors including the Applicant herein.

3. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent-insolvent submitted that after elaborately discussing and dealing with the submissions made by the 1st Respondent/debtor and analysing the accounts, the Court has passed an order declaring him as insolvent. Therefore, it is not proper for the applicant being a single creditor to come to this Court asking for such reliefs. In supports of his case, learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramankrishnan v. Bashyam Achari, 1978 (2) MLJ 139. Moreover, the learned Counsel submits that the property of the 1st Respondent/insolvent is now lying with the Official Assignee and when the creditor has any claim to be made, he can do so by filing appropriate Petition before the Official Assignee.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent.

5. In Ramakrishnan v. Bashyam Achari, 1978 (2) MLJ 139, the Division Bench of this Court held in para 3 as follows:

“…. The expression of inability by a debtor to pay his debtors cannot be lightly disregarded by Courts on a priori considerations and relief refused to the debtor, who seeks for being adjudicated voluntarily as an insolvent provided the other conditions for the filing of a debtor’s Petition either under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act are satisfied. The ratio behind the principle appears to be that if a person seeks the assistance of Court, but through the channel of law, for being badged as an insolvent on the ground that he is unable to pay his creditors, then, such an exposure of his status and ability is prima facie proof that he seeks for relief under the Insolvency Law for being adjudicated as bankrupt. At that stage, it would be hazardous to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of such voluntary statements made by debtor. This is because the Insolvency Law creates within its framework an apparatus to discover whether there is any mala fides or act of suppression or a design to avoid the creditors by secreting property. Such investigations to net the activities of the insolvent and being into common pool all the available resources and properties of the insolvent could be undertaken by the public officers, namely, the Official Assignee in the Presidency Towns and the Official Receiver in places where the Provincial Insolvency Act is in force. Such is the power of the Official Assignee crested under the various provisions of the Bankruptcy law that it is not for a single creditor to single out himself and act on his own and apart from the Official Assignee, who represents the body of creditors. It is the Official Assignee who should act and function for and on behalf of the creditors after an order of adjudication is made. This entitlement which is vested in the Official Assignee by statute cannot be lightly dented by a creditor, however inquisitive he may be and ackn